In-House Diamond Search (beta)

[Mara]

Personally, I think the more data points that a customer has the better, and spread would just be one of many tools that I'd use. Though I do think that more info, actually the most info, should be offered from the in-house stones than just the basics, definitely.

I'll have to play around with it...great job L&I!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Storm let me tell you when I have young couples buying a diamond to put in an engagement ring and they are sitting and looking at 28 diamonds in a tray.
You are sooo wrooong. It is one of THE most important factors and you seem to be blind to it (maybe because your techniques are designed for buying blind?)

Date: 11/10/2005 8:42:44 AM
Author: strmrdr
I think spread should be dropped.
The diamond with the best spread is not always the best diamond.

If fancies spread are listed it should be against like diamonds.
Good luck coming up on with a number for asschers im happy with :}

All diamond should be compared to the current "ideal" because when we start to develop super fancies, they too should be considered to the old ideal.
The comparison should be for spread and light return, and contrast and fire and ......
Why should an ideal princess cut be accepted if it is only 80% as good as an ideal round?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/10/2005 1:56:51 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Why should an ideal princess cut be accepted if it is only 80% as good as an ideal round?

good thing you didnt say asscher or we would have to fight
No spread compared to round is not a good measure of a fancy shaped diamonds quality.
No matter how someone wants to whitewash it with some shapes it is a comprimise you make. You give up spread for the shape.
This thread isnt even done yet and your saying spread is a good measurement of diamond quality. Remid me not to let you pick asschers for me :}

See why I think its a bad idea?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/10/2005 1:56:51 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Storm let me tell you when I have young couples buying a diamond to put in an engagement ring and they are sitting and looking at 28 diamonds in a tray.

You are sooo wrooong. It is one of THE most important factors and you seem to be blind to it (maybe because your techniques are designed for buying blind?)

Would they pick a larger stone cut like your bad cz or a smaller one cut like your good cz that looks just as big?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/10/2005 3:38:10 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 11/10/2005 1:56:51 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Why should an ideal princess cut be accepted if it is only 80% as good as an ideal round?

good thing you didnt say asscher or we would have to fight
No spread compared to round is not a good measure of a fancy shaped diamonds quality.
No matter how someone wants to whitewash it with some shapes it is a comprimise you make. You give up spread for the shape.
This thread isnt even done yet and your saying spread is a good measurement of diamond quality. Remid me not to let you pick asschers for me :}

See why I think its a bad idea?

Why should people not be aware of the spread difference betwen asscher and round?
And what about all the fancy cuts that spread way bigger than rounds - marquise and trillion for example?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/10/2005 6:27:19 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/10/2005 3:38:10 PM

Author: strmrdr

Date: 11/10/2005 1:56:51 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Why should an ideal princess cut be accepted if it is only 80% as good as an ideal round?

good thing you didnt say asscher or we would have to fight

No spread compared to round is not a good measure of a fancy shaped diamonds quality.

No matter how someone wants to whitewash it with some shapes it is a comprimise you make. You give up spread for the shape.

This thread isnt even done yet and your saying spread is a good measurement of diamond quality. Remid me not to let you pick asschers for me :}


See why I think its a bad idea?

Why should people not be aware of the spread difference betwen asscher and round?

And what about all the fancy cuts that spread way bigger than rounds - marquise and trillion for example?

sure they should but its a very very poor way to pick em.
Which is the point your missing over and over and over again. :}
My main point is that best spread does not equal best diamond and in a lot of cases can be misleading.

Im out of this thread iv said what I wanted to say so no need to get into it anymore.
so im gonna chill out and drink a pepsi! cheers!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Good idea Storm, because we can only give people tools and info, but we should never tell them what to buy.

But I have just done some homework on the Tolkowsky model

Sergey, Vladimir and I worked out the spread function on DiamCalc some years ago and incorporated it into the little box on the right hand side. This info is not yet in Gem Adviser - but probably should be.

AGS adopted the same thinking and model as described below.

Since this is an already well established idea, so it would be silly to add ''another type of plug to the frequent travelers bag of adaptors''.
I did make a mistake however – the girdle is as displayed below.
Girdle at the thin valley 1.0%
Girdle at the facet junctions 2.6%
So according to ours (and Marty Haske''s) best guess as to GIA girdle thickness - this model might recieve GIA grades based on size of:
Extremely Thick >12ct
Very Thick >7ct
Thick >2.5ct
Slightly Thick >1.5ct
Medium >2/3rd
Thin >1/3rd
Very Thin >0.10ct
At another DiamCalc standard – 6.00mm a common Storm preferred diamond with 56% table and Tolkowsky proportions, with this medium girdle (on the thin side of medium) and a 56% table, this diamond would have a spread of our standard diamond that was 1.33% lighter because of the bigger table.
i.e. a Storm diamond could be 0.7866ct instead of 0.80ct.

The very small table (53%) very much accounts for the fact that the girdle is slightly thinner than most diamonds in the market. (However for diamonds under 1ct I think 1% valley 2.6% junctions is too thin).

So it is a fair standard or Etalon.